troubleshoot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'diagnoses', 'identifies causes', and 'provides diagnostic steps and solutions', which suggests it's a read-only advisory tool. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether it performs actual system checks, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the solutions take (text, links, code snippets).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose with specific examples, the second explains the diagnostic process. Every element earns its place, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with 'Diagnoses CRS-related problems' rather than 'Troubleshoot CRS-related problems.'

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and scope but lacks completeness. It doesn't describe what the output will contain (beyond 'diagnostic steps and solutions'), doesn't explain the tool's limitations, and doesn't address how the context object parameters relate to the troubleshooting process. Given the complexity of CRS troubleshooting, more behavioral context would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions symptoms like 'coordinate shifts' and 'calculation errors' which align with the schema's symptom parameter examples, but provides no additional semantic context about how parameters should be used together or special considerations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('troubleshoot', 'diagnoses', 'identifies', 'provides') and resources ('CRS-related problems'), listing concrete examples like coordinate shifts and calculation errors. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_crs or validate_crs_usage by focusing on diagnostic problem-solving rather than comparison or validation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for CRS-related troubleshooting scenarios through examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like suggest_transformation or get_best_practices. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the symptom examples.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.